Because of the severe shortage of home health care workers, many young people with disabilities are somewhere they don‘t want and don‘t need to be: in nursing homes or assisted living facilities. Yet if they were able to find and hire people to take care of them at home, they could live much more independently and also cost the taxpayers a lot less.

I have been a home health care worker and I know the physical and emotional strain it puts on a person. And since the pay is not that much different from working at a fast food place, I might well have chosen the latter before too long.

In the Olmstead decision (see below), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to continue to “warehouse” people with disabilities in institutions, if their health conditions do not warrant it. But with the shortage of people willing to take on this kind of work for the current available wages, this landmark court decision could be rendered relatively meaningless.

It is time for an adjustment in our economy, and for some of our nation’s wealth to “trickle down” to the people that want to be liberated from institutions, and the people who can help them make that a reality.

Since then, there has been an increase in news reports about ill-fated service and/or emotional support animals on flights. This includes a passenger who says she was told to (and did) flush her emotional support hamster down an airline toilet, as well as a puppy who tragically died after being placed in an overhead bin. This and other negative publicity has caused several airlines to re-examine their policies regarding animals on airplanes.

There’s no question that this is a very difficult issue. While airlines are required to allow service and emotional support animals on planes for passengers with disabilites, many passengers are taking advantage of the fact that they don’t have to pay extra for animals they label as “service” or “support” animals. That, along with the natural reluctance to probe into customers’ claims of being “disabled,” has resulted in increasing numbers of untrained and unruly animals on flights. And of course, the people who pay the highest price are people with true disabilities who really need those animals and who have trained them appropriately.

As a result, several airlines are re-examining their policies and trying to impose more structure while still following the law. One example is American Airlines, which has just announced a new policy that will go into effect on July 1. This policy will prohibit amphibians, goats, hedgehogs, insects, nonhousehold birds and animals with tusks, horns or hooves from boarding their airplanes. An exception will be made for miniature horses that have been trained as service animals.

The new policy will also require that customers traveling with support or service animals submit documentation about their animals. They will also have to sign a form indicating that the animals will not be disruptive on the flight. While there’s not much that can be done mid-flight if an animal doesn’t live up to this promise, at least we’re moving in the right direction!

Anyone with mobility problems understands the value of curb cuts. Without them, we are much more vulnerable and unsafe.

We may try to somehow jump our wheelchairs or walkers up onto the curb, or try to use our canes as pole vaults as we “leap” from street to sidewalk. We may try to use the street as an erstwhile sidewalk, or ask a stranger for help. But the most likely thing is that we will simply decide that the danger is not worth the risk and turn back. This is one of the ways that people with disabilities are effectively shut out of events and activities that are routine for most people.

This kind of dilemma is largely why the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) was enacted. One of the ADA’s requirements is that cities build curb cuts into newly-constructed sidewalks or into sidewalks that are being repaired or otherwise altered.

I live in Portland, Oregon, which is famous for being progressive, green and extremely bicycle-friendly. But Portland was recently sued by wheelchair users, who claimed that the city was not installing enough curb cuts nor adequately maintaining the sidewalks.

Portland has just settled this case for $13 million dollars. Part of the agreement is that the city will construct 1500 curb cuts a year.

As explained previously, these “getting real” posts are attempts to shed daylight on some of the wildly mistaken beliefs about disability laws. In today’s piece, I’ll talk about the myths and realities of illegal drugs at work.

MYTH

Even if an employer has a policy prohibiting the use of drugs in the workplace, that employer cannot terminate an employee if he claims that he is a drug addict. This is because drug addiction is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

FACT

Actually, current users of illegal drugs are NOT protected under the ADA. Neither are kleptomaniacs, pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers or people with sexual behavior disorders.

This may seem strange, because there is little doubt that these conditions would ordinarily fit the legal definition of “disability.” So why are they excluded? The reason, pure and simple, is politics. The drafters of the ADA knew they would face an even bigger battle if certain stigmatized activities were legally protected, so they simply wrote them out of the law.

This may also help explain why alcoholics are protected under the ADA. Regardless of the damage alcohol can do, it is still legal and hence occupies a higher “status” than other addicting drugs.

BUT, REALITY CHECK!

Even if alcoholism is protected under the ADA, an employer can still discipline and even terminate an employee who is under the influence on the job. (The employer should have a policy stating this, of course.)

There were actually some early cases where terminated employees claimed that the ADA allowed them to be drunk on the job. The courts did not buy that, however, and the usual accommodation is to give the employee time off for treatment.

Finally, please keep in mind that although current drug users are not legally protected, former users are. The idea is that the addict who has gone through treatment and is ready to return to work should be able to do so without being stigmatized.

In the early 20th Century, several U.S. cities had laws that actually forbade people with disabilities from showing themselves in public.

These were the notorious “Ugly Laws.” For example, Chicago’s law forbade anyone who was “diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object from being in the public view.”

Those laws are gone now, but there are still people who would prefer not to have to look at those of us with disabilities. And one of them appears to be our president.

Recently, President Trump met with several members of the U.S. Paralympic team, to congratulate them on games well played. But while he was honoring them and calling them “inspirational,” he also said he had only watched “as much as I could” of the games. This was because, “It was a little tough to watch.”

I have attached links below that show President Trump’s remarks, as well as the very eloquent response to him by the U. S. Paralympic organizers. I will let this information speak for itself.

But isn’t he really saying that he would rather not look at us unless he has to, and wasn’t it this kind of thinking that created the Ugly Laws in the first place?